Assessing the economic impacts of nature based tourism in Scotland

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1991 0.708 (STMS Base Year) 2000 0.858 2001 0.868 2002 0.879 2003 0.891 2004 0.903 2005 0.922 2006 0.943 2007 0.965 2008 - 2009 1.021 Visitor expenditure in Scotland (at 2008 prices) is converted into FTEs (inclusive of the multiplier) through using a ratio of £35,000 spending : 1 FTE. This is considered an appropriate average taking into account the main sectors of spend by visitors (accommodation, catering, visitor attractions, activity providers, etc). Although multipliers for visitor spending will differ in practice depending on main activities, region within Scotland, type of accommodation used, etc, we found no evidence in the reports that we assessed for making systematic adjustments to this broad ratio for particular types of visitor. Transport costs to their holiday destination is not included as visitor spending (a normal convention in tourism impact analysis). Such expenditure generates relatively small employment impact per £. The first set of estimates in the table relate to “economic contribution” and include all attributable holiday tourist spending in Scotland. The second set relates to “economic impact”, and attribute only 50% of the spending of Scottish residents on holiday in Scotland as net impact – i.e. it is assumed (broadly) that the other 50% would otherwise have been spent during the year on other purchases within Scotland (i.e. it will have been displaced). The assumption that 50% of spending by Scottish residents would be non-displaced relates (i) to the alternative holidays that some would have made outwith Scotland had they not holidayed in Scotland (i.e. had Scotland not had the natural heritage and other aspects of interest to these people), and (ii) to the relatively high impact within Scotland that a typical tourist’s expenditure in rural Scotland generates – compared, for example, with spending in major stores in cities. Displacement will be higher for those for whom nature is only part of their reason for visiting Scotland; and the 50% displacement adjustment is an average of the different types of visitor. Point (ii) has been illustrated in much empirical analysis – i.e. the value added in Scotland from a walker staying in a guest house in Skye per £ spent is relatively high. The argument is that those visitors who are non-displaced will on average generate less value added per £ spent. In excluding all business tourism, the analysis undervalues the importance of the natural heritage to Scotland’s tourism in as far as a proportion of business trips either relate directly to the country’s natural heritage or to its tourism industry (Scotland’s principal industry), which in turn is highly dependent – as illustrated in this report – on its natural heritage. Excluding business tourism and non-holiday VFR, and adjusting the “economic contribution” figures for visits from within Scotland, are not possible with precision as the UKTS and IPS data available to us (via VisitScotland) and the information from the impact studies that we have assessed in this report do not provide sufficient evidence. 83
Similarly, it is not possible to split all information provided in impact reports on particular activities into overnight stay expenditures and day trip expenditures without a degree of estimation. Our estimated disaggregations were, however, informed in many cases by information in other reports or by UKTS / IPS figures. The proportions of visitor expenditure (and hence FTEs) in Scotland that we have assigned to the natural heritage are applied to 2008 totals, but are not as precise as to apply solely to that year. Tourism in Scotland in 2008 was relatively low compared both with the previous year (2007) and to 2009 (through “staycations” due to the recession and the depreciation of sterling). Thus, the same proportions could be applied to 2007, 2009 or 2010 totals. Relatively high spending in 2008 by overseas visitors to Scotland (an average of £64 per day) and by non-Scottish UK visitors (an average of c£75 per day) compares with average spending by Scottish tourists in Scotland of £48 (rounded to £50 to allow for lower average VFR spend) per day. Evidence from the UKTS and reports on nature-based holiday visits that include visitor surveys suggest that the average nature-based holiday visitor from overseas or the rest of the UK will spend less per night than these overall averages, which will mainly be due to staying in rural Scotland where overnight stays tend to be less expensive than in cities and large towns, and where there are fewer retail spending opportunities, less evening entertainment, etc. Thus we have assumed that the average naturebased holiday visitor in Scotland (including Scottish residents) spends an average of £55 per day. As an example, committed overnight stay walkers tend to spend less per day than the average visitor – while walking, their expenditure will be minimal; they often camp or stay in budget accommodation close to a walking route; they might be in a remote part of Scotland without spending opportunities; they might be members of an organised group that shares costs; and they are often cost-conscious (e.g. being students, retired, or wishing to eke out their holiday spending over the year). These visitors, however, tend to take relatively long trips for walking – especially people from England visiting the north of Scotland – and this will tend to bring their average spend per trip (as distinct from per day) up to the average for non Scottish visitors to Scotland. For overseas and rest of the UK visitors on holidays in Scotland combined, an average spend per 24 hours of £70 is assumed, while for rural holidays, an average 24 hours spend of £60 is assumed. Where cells in the table are based on a percentage of all holiday visitors to Scotland, the base will include holiday visitors to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Scenery as a motivation is a residual feature of Scotland’s natural heritage in the analysis to the extent that visitors whose prime motivation in taking a holiday in Scotland might have been wildlife, walking, etc will often tend to have been drawn to Scotland (rather than another destination) because of its outstanding scenery. Thus, the overall value of scenery in Scotland’s tourism appeal is under-represented in the table. The control totals for holiday tourism expenditures in Scotland in 2008 are as follows (see 13.2 and 13.3 above): 84
Page 1 and 2:
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissio
Page 3 and 4:
COMMISSIONED REPORT Summary Assessi
Page 5 and 6:
7 CYCLING 45 7.1 Mountain biking 45
Page 7 and 8:
List of Tables Page Table 1 - Natur
Page 9 and 10:
1.3 Nature-based tourism For the pu
Page 11 and 12:
market and accounts for 83% of tour
Page 13 and 14:
expenditure during these trips was
Page 15 and 16:
nature site • . Were this spend t
Page 17 and 18:
Team members already held many rele
Page 19 and 20:
2.3.2 Assessing employment and inco
Page 21 and 22:
• Common resources, which are use
Page 23 and 24:
4 FIELD SPORTS The findings from th
Page 25 and 26:
4.2 Deer management The Contributio
Page 27 and 28:
Table 11 - Deer Management in Scotl
Page 29 and 30:
• Sea angling questions incorpora
Page 31 and 32:
4.6 Other studies • The trips mos
Page 33 and 34:
3. The Economic Impact of Game and
Page 35 and 36:
5 WILDLIFE WATCHING 5.1 Wildlife to
Page 37 and 38:
These impacts appear to us to be ov
Page 39 and 40: Wildlife watching Substantial but n
Page 41 and 42: • Abseiling - allows safe descent
Page 43 and 44: Client: HIE, SNH and VisitScotland
Page 45 and 46: those who said they were walking al
Page 47 and 48: oute was estimated to be in the reg
Page 49 and 50: participants, though in terms of vo
Page 51 and 52: Visit Scotland (2009) provides a fi
Page 53 and 54: This evaluation assessed the ultima
Page 55 and 56: For these motivational reasons, Gre
Page 57 and 58: 8 HORSE RIDING 8.1 Equestrian sport
Page 59 and 60: 9 WATERSPORTS Some watersports can
Page 61 and 62: Watersports are defined in this rep
Page 63 and 64: The methodology resulted in small s
Page 65 and 66: 10 NATURE-RELATED SITES AND FACILIT
Page 67 and 68: Forest Table 29 - Mean spend per tr
Page 69 and 70: Scotland’s canals: the economic e
Page 71 and 72: once displacement is allowed for -
Page 73 and 74: explore the issues they saw as bein
Page 75 and 76: Recent visitor surveys in Orkney (A
Page 77 and 78: Table 45 - UK visitor activities un
Page 79 and 80: 12 THE NATURAL HERITAGE IN SCOTLAND
Page 81 and 82: 12.4 International marketing Intern
Page 83 and 84: Scotland’s NNR Magical Places Ama
Page 85 and 86: 13 PAN-SCOTLAND ANALYSIS 13.1 Reaso
Page 87 and 88: Table 49 - Value of tourism outside
Page 89: The total of which this contributio
Page 93 and 94: Table 52 - Estimated Impacts by act
Page 95 and 96: 14 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESE
Page 97 and 98: Recommendation 4: It would be desir
Page 99 and 100: George Street Research and Jones Ec
Page 101 and 102: Press and Journal. 2010. Tourists g
Page 103 and 104: Appendix A: Categories of Natural H
Page 105 and 106: • (Mixed - 19%) The types of walk
Page 107 and 108: Cycling Segments Scott Porter’s 2
Page 109 and 110: aqua / snorkelling) or on longer ho
Page 111 and 112: Appendix B - Methodological Notes 1
Page 113: www.snh.gov.uk © Scottish Natural
show all

Assessing the economic impacts of nature based tourism in Scotland

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?